For those foreign policy theorists who see a symbiotic link between domestic and foreign policy, the characterization of Obama as a ‘liberal’ in domestic policy but a ‘hawk’ on war, may emerge as a conundrum of sorts but there is a
possibility of these policy discrepancies being narrowed if and when the proposed strategic arms arsenal reduction is implemented. For, this would enable the US President to follow a less militaristic foreign policy and spend more domestically on social welfare. In fact, the possibility of taking the US in the direction of a comparatively Social Democracy-oriented polity would now be open.
This planned strategic arms cutback is being seen in some quarters as proof that the US is taking another step in the direction of realizing the Obama vision of ‘a nuclear-free world’ but the issue which would now confront the ‘hawks’ in US governing circles is whether the US is at risk of compromising its security markedly through this initiative, which, moderate opinion the world over is bound to welcome.
Insofar as a reduction in the major powers’ strategic arms arsenals contributes towards a more stable international security climate, the Obama administration’s proposed move needs to be welcomed, but the evidence is also at hand that the policy of nuclear non-proliferation is yet to be embraced by the entirety of the international community. There is North Korea, for instance, which has reportedly just launched a third nuclear test and has made it quite clear that it intends targeting the US. Accordingly, the US President would probably need to brace for strong domestic criticism that he is being unmindful of the totality of US security interests although there is no doubt that the strategic arms reduction move is a highly progressive one which rational sections the world over need to welcome.
For those foreign policy theorists who see a symbiotic link between domestic and foreign policy, the characterization of Obama as a ‘liberal’ in domestic policy but a ‘hawk’ on war, may emerge as a conundrum of sorts but there is a possibility of these policy discrepancies being narrowed if and when the proposed strategic arms arsenal reduction is implemented. For, this would enable the US President to follow a less militaristic foreign policy and spend more domestically on social welfare. In fact, the possibility of taking the US in the direction of a comparatively Social Democracy-oriented polity would now be open. However, this would call for continuity and consistency in the formulation and implementation of a progressive and pro-people domestic policy.
But the tasks confronting the Obama administration in the foreign policy sphere are both numerous and exacting. Increasing multi-polarity in the international power structure is unlikely to permit the US the liberty of pursuing too liberal a policy abroad. Besides recalcitrance among some international actors on the nuclear issue, it is all too evident that hitherto Western international military hegemony is on the wane. Much will depend on how swiftly the Middle East question is resolved but the stark truth is that even under President Obama this conundrum has been left virtually untouched by the US. Moreover, the Middle East is one arena where US military hegemony is being progressively challenged. There is the case of Iran, for instance, which is not proving pliable on the nuclear issue and is increasingly establishing that it is a sizeable power to contend with.
In fact, one cannot see how the Middle East problem could be resolved without Iran being permitted to participate in the conflict-resolution effort. But the possibility of this happening is right now remote on account of the habitually strained relations between the West and Iran. However, Iran does wield influence over some important states in the Middle East, such as Syria, and it is difficult to visualize any progress in the direction of resolving the Middle East conflict without Iran featuring as a party to the negotiatory process.
As US Secretary of State John Kerry would come to realize as he pays his first visit to the Middle East in his new official capacity, nothing short of an international conference on the Middle East, inclusive of the regional powers that matter, would help in laying the basis for a Middle East settlement. As could be seen, Iran is seeking closer cooperative ties with predominant Middle Eastern power, Egypt, and it would not be in the interest of Middle East peace for major political polarizations to occur among the main regional stakeholders to the issue. Egypt, however, cannot be regarded as a ‘natural ally’ by the West on account of the fact that the Egyptian President is staunchly backed by the Moslem Brotherhood, which is also a major factor in the Algerian turmoil.
Even in the Syrian theatre, the forces of religious fundamentalism are strong and there is no guarantee that the politics of the country will develop in ways that would meet the wishes of the West. As it is, political developments have defeated Western expectations in Egypt and Libya, for instance. The indications, then, are that ‘things are falling apart’ the West ‘cannot hold’ in the global theatres of conflict. The fundamental reality in global politics is multi-polarity and the US would be obliged to exert diplomacy of a highly creative and inclusive kind if it is to remain a predominant determining influence in international political developments.
